Fudged Fevers in the Frozen North

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

[see Update at the end of this post]

I got to thinking about the (non) adjustment of the GISS temperature data for the Urban Heat Island effect, and it reminded me that I had once looked briefly at Anchorage, Alaska in that regard. So I thought I’d take a fresh look. I used the GISS (NASA) temperature data available here.

Given my experience with the Darwin, Australia records, I looked at the “homogenization adjustment”. According to GISS:

The goal of the homogenization effort is to avoid any impact (warming or cooling) of the changing environment that some stations experienced by changing the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.

Here’s how the Anchorage data has been homogenized. Figure 1 shows the difference between the Anchorage data before and after homogenization:

Figure 1. Homogenization adjustments made by GISS to the Anchorage, Alaska urban temperature record (red stepped line, left scale) and Anchorage population (orange curve, right scale)

Now, I suppose that this is vaguely reasonable. At least it is in the right direction, reducing the apparent warming. I say “vaguely reasonable” because this adjustment is supposed to take care of “UHI”, the Urban Heat Island effect. As most everyone has experienced driving into any city, the city is usually warmer than the surrounding countryside. UHI is the result of increasing population, with the accompanying changes around the temperature station. More buildings, more roads, more cars, more parking lots, all of these raise the temperature, forming a heat “island” around the city. The larger the population of the city, the greater the UHI.

But here’s the problem. As Fig. 1 shows, until World War II, Anchorage was a very sleepy village of a few thousand. Since then the population has skyrocketed. But the homogeneity adjustment does not match this in any sense. The homogeneity adjustment is a straight line (albeit one with steps …why steps? … but I digress). The adjustment starts way back in 1926 … why would the 1926 Anchorage temperature need any adjustment at all? And how does this adjust for UHI?

Intrigued by this oddity, I looked at the nearest rural station, which is Matanuska. It is only about 35 miles (60 km) from Anchorage, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Anchorage (urban) and Matanuska (rural) temperature stations.

Matanuska is clearly in the same climatological zone as Anchorage. This is verified by the correlation between the two records, which is about 0.9. So it would be one of the nearby rural stations used to homogenize Anchorage.

Now, according to GISS the homogeneity adjustments are designed to adjust the urban stations like Anchorage so that they more closely match the rural stations like Matanuska. Imagine my surprise when I calculated the homogeneity adjustment to Matanuska, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Homogenization adjustments made by GISS to the Matanuska, Alaska rural temperature record.

Say what? What could possibly justify that kind of adjustment, seven tenths of a degree? The early part of the record is adjusted to show less warming. Then from 1973 to 1989, Matanuska is adjusted to warm at a feverish rate of 4.4 degrees per century … but Matanuska is a RURAL station. Since GISS says that the homogenization effort is designed to change the “long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors”, why is Matanuska  being adjusted at all?

Not sure what I can say about that, except that I don’t understand it in the slightest. My guess is that what has happened is that a faulty computer program has been applied to fudge the record of every temperature station on the planet. The results have then been used without the slightest attempt at quality control.

Yes, I know it’s a big job to look at thousands of stations to see what the computer program has done to each and every one of them … but if you are not willing to make sure that your hotrod whizbang computer program actually works for each and every station, you should not be in charge of homogenizing milk, much less temperatures.

The justification that is always given for these adjustments is that they must be right because the global average of the GISS adjusted dataset (roughly) matches the GHCN adjusted dataset, which (roughly) matches the CRU adjusted dataset.

Sorry, I don’t find that convincing in the slightest. All three have been shown to have errors. All that shows is that their errors roughly match, which is meaningless. We need to throw all of these “adjusted datasets” in the trash can and start over.

As the Romans used to say “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”, which means “false in one thing, false in everything”. Do we know that everything is false? Absolutely not … but given egregious oddities like this one, we have absolutely no reason to believe that they are true either.

Since people are asking us to bet billions on this dataset, we need more than a “well, it’s kinda like the other datasets that contain known errors” to justify their calculations. NASA is not doing the job we are paying them to do. Why should citizen scientists like myself have to dig out these oddities? The adjustments for each station should be published and graphed. Every single change in the data should be explained and justified. The computer code should be published and verified.

Until they get off their dead … … armchairs and do the work they are paid to do, we can place no credence in their claims of temperature changes. They may be right … but given their egregious errors, we have no reason to believe that, and certainly no reason to spend billions of dollars based on their claims.

[Update – Alaska Climate Research Center releases new figures]

I have mentioned the effect of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) below. The Alaska Climate Research Center have just released their update to the Alaska data. Here’s that information:

Figure 4. Alaska Temperature Average from First Order Observing Stations

In the Alaska Climate Research Center data, you can clearly see the 1976 shift of the PDO from the cool to the warm phase, and the recent return to the cool phase. Unsurprisingly, the rise in the Alaska temperatures (typically shown with a continuously rising straight trend line through all the data) have been cited over and over as “proof” that the Arctic is warming. However, the reality is a fairly constant temperature from 1949-1975, a huge step change 1975-1976, and a fairly constant temperature from 1976 until the recent drop. Here’s how the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report interprets these numbers …

Figure 5. How the IPCC spins the data.

SOURCE: (IPCC FAR WG1 Chapter 9, p. 695)

As you can see, they have played fast and loose with the facts. They have averaged the information into decade long blocks 1955-1965, 1965-1975, 1975-1985 etc. This totally obsures the 1975-1976 jump. It also gives a false impression of the post-1980 situation, falsely showing purported continuing warming post 1980. Finally, they have used “adjusted data” (an oxymoron if there ever was one). As you can see from Fig. 4 above, this is merely global warming propaganda. People have asked why I say the Alaska data is “fudged” … that’s a good example of why.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thanks, Willis, for keeping attention focused on fudged climate data.
“Figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure!”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

pat

Again we see that actual temperature readings are discarded in favor of altered readings. The public is never informed. There appears to be absolutely no rational reason to alter the readings. This is a prime example, but not unprecedented.

DirkH

Nice one, Willis. Now i’m eager to see the first AGW specimen and the excuse it brings us.

James S

There needs to be a full investigation into the adjustments of every weather station used in the temperature reconstructions. This should include an analysis of exactly how the data is being adjusted and a short paper as to what each adjustment does and why it is necessary.
It was, for example, recently admitted in the New Zealand Parliament that without adjustments, the temperature record for New Zealand shows no warming – the 0.9 degrees C warming that is shown in the official record is entirely as a result of the adjustments.
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/8/8/e/49HansQ_20100217_00000009-9-National-Institute-of-Water-and-Atmospheric.htm
It may be that the adjustments are valid but there is no schedule of them so nobody can see exactly what they do and why.
It may be expensive to do but the total cost is chicken-feed compared to the billions being spent on climate change mitigation.

Leonard Weinstein

I think you forgot the minus signs in Figure 1, or have the terms reversed. If the adjusted temperature is larger than unadjusted, the correction would result in raising the earlier temperatures, not lowering. Figure 3 looks strange, since the correction used would make the dip between 1920 to 1990 deeper, and this is probably backwards. I think you have a sign error in both.

rbateman

What is needed is a surface station data effort.

sagi

Yes, first the data, then the “science”. Thanks!

Robert

Kinda started slow, but really picked up speed towards the end there.
You were on to something with: “Not sure what I can say about that, except that I don’t understand it in the slightest.” That seems like a logical place to stop. You raise a question, maybe somebody addresses it, everybody goes home happy.
Unfortunately you go on to assume all sorts of things about what it must mean, and end with a rousing course of “all the measurements are wrong.” Typically, you cannot even bring yourself to accurately describe the evidence that the measurements are not wrong. The improbability of the exact same errors showing up all over the world in multiple data sets collected by different methods and different people you dismiss as “meaningless,” which it most certainly is not.
No, you were dead on: you don’t understand what’s going on in the slightest.

PaulsNZ

The same here in NZ, a classic was that the trend of raw temperature data at one station was negative, after adjusting for no known reason the trend was positive!.

There you go again, Anthony, focusing on the “nitty-gritty of measurement,” the “small technicalities” that “don’t matter” in“an epic game of nitpicking” and yet again “zeroing in on minor technical issues while ignoring the massive and converging lines of evidence.”

Willis Eschenbach

Leonard Weinstein (15:30:54)

I think you forgot the minus signs in Figure 1, or have the terms reversed. If the adjusted temperature is larger than unadjusted, the correction would result in raising the earlier temperatures, not lowering. Figure 3 looks strange, since the correction used would make the dip between 1920 to 1990 deeper, and this is probably backwards. I think you have a sign error in both.

Leonard, I believe the signs are correct. Since the early years of the Anchorage record are adjusted to be warmer than the later years, this reduces the apparent warming. Or as I said above, “At least it is in the right direction, reducing the apparent warming.”
Thanks for checking, that’s science at work.

Andrew30

James S (15:29:37) :
“There needs to be a full investigation into the adjustments of every weather station used in the temperature reconstructions”
There will be.
Commonwealth of Virginia v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Petition for Reconsideration of Endangerment & Cause (U.S. Court of Appeals District of Columbia)
http://www.oag.state.va.us/LEGAL_LEGIS/CourtFilings/Comm%20v%20EPA%20-%20Pet%20for%20Reconsideration%202_16_10.pdf

Leonard Weinstein

I think my first comment is partially wrong. The correction should have been made to later data, not earlier, but a correction of later data would be in the direction shown. However, the overall level of temperature would be wrong with where they made the correction. If this result was averaged in with other data, the overall level would be biased high, even though the direction of correction locally would give a more correct trend locally. I also suspect the magnitude of correction is much too low at later dates.

DirkH

Willis got the sign right IMHO, read it like this: back in the day when Anchorage was a small village, 0.9 degrees were added.
Later when it was a big city 0 degrees were added. This is a compensation for the UHI.

Nope. Sorry. The reason that you do not understand the correction to the readings at Matanuska is that there is no verifiable reason for them.
I’m sorry, that is not quite what I meant. I meant that there is no verifiable scientific reason for them.
There is a reason. Hide The Decline.
The rural site was adjusted to make it fit the urban site, which was not properly adjusted to correct for the heat island effect at all.
Beginning in about 1955, there should have been about a 5 degree adjustment in the Anchorage temperature, to adjust for the heat island effect.
And Matanuska needed no adjustment at all, having incurred no heat island effect.
This is not homogenization. This is false data manipulation, ordered up by politicians, for the purpose of furthering their dreams of a Universal Utopian Socialist State.
To quote Commodore Edwin Peary, “find a way or fake one.”

Hu McCulloch

Willis —
Very interesting!
The Anchorage adjustments appear to occur every 9 years or so on average, rather than an even 10, which in itself is a little curious.
But then the Matanuska adjustments, which are on about the same schedule until their min around 1970, suddenly increase to every 2 or 3 years. Curiouser yet!

John Blake

It has been evident for some years now that Big Government offices collude in bad faith under false pretenses to promote a radical Warmist agenda increasingly divorced from reality. Manifestly, Climate Cultists’ goal is to sabotage, subvert the private-sector energy economy, ensuring that coal, oil, nuclear sources default to collectivist Statist zero, control by a fathomlessly corrupt, incompetent administrative/bureaucratic/regulatory apparat.
Cap-and-tax, EPA usurpations, have become so blatantly overt that no objective, rational observer can deny plain fact: This is not “politics as usual” but an ongoing, slow-motion coup de main. Difficult to realize, nevermind accept, individual actors are coalescing to proclaim, They Shall Not Pass.

Steve McIntyre did an audit of the GISS UHI adjustments in March 2008 after “scraping” the NASA website.
The audit shows that NASA applies an urban correction of its GISS temperature index in the wrong direction in 45% of the adjustments. Instead of eliminating the urbanization effects, these wrong way corrections makes the urban warming trends steeper. This article discusses Steve McIntyre’s audit of the GISS adjustments, with links to his original post:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CorrectCorrections.pdf

Alan S

I have extreme difficulty understanding, from GISS policy as related above, why any rural station would be adjusted upwards.
I assume I am missing something obvious and would dearly like to be enlightened.
OT, but the Sun’s recovery would appear to be less than stellar, ( sorry couldn’t resist ), are we still bumping along the bottom of the minimum? and if so is this cycle a little longer than quoted?

Willis, If GISS adjusted the “rural” record, then you better check the metadata.
Not sure if hansen used nightlights for alaska. Anyways the algorithm should not change a station that “classifies” as rural. So if he used nighlights
and nightlights were “dim” or “bright” then it would get adjusted.
If he used population, then the pop would have to be less than 5K in 1995.
it aint rural unless hansen says its rural. take a picture from space in 1995 to tell.

3x2

James S (15:29:37) :
There needs to be a full investigation into the adjustments of every weather station used in the temperature reconstructions. This should include an analysis of exactly how the data is being adjusted and a short paper as to what each adjustment does and why it is necessary.

No doubt the “no money for that” line will be trotted out but given the mind numbing sums that have already disappeared into the black hole that is AGW one way or another…

Robert

” Leonard Weinstein (15:30:54) :
I think you forgot the minus signs in Figure 1, or have the terms reversed. If the adjusted temperature is larger than unadjusted, the correction would result in raising the earlier temperatures, not lowering. Figure 3 looks strange, since the correction used would make the dip between 1920 to 1990 deeper, and this is probably backwards. I think you have a sign error in both.”
“falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”?

henry

Would it be possible to append the second graph (the one of Matanuska) to show the population growth?
Second, at what interval does the adjustment steps for Anchorage and Matanuska occur? If they’re using a population growth for the adjustment steps to account or UHI, one would assume that they occur at National Census times (i.e, every 10 years or so).
The steps for the “rise” in Matanuska seem to be every two or three years since the mid-70’s…

They falsified the data, and they are perfectly aware of it.
They hoped that their funding would be written into the law before anybody noticed. How pathetic.
Thank you, Mr. Eschenbach.
(Was the famous minstrel, Wolfram von Eschenbach, by any chance, one of your ancestors?)

Pascvaks

Little wonder that Joe & Josie Plumber are still buying Farmer’s Almanacs every year.
Science is killing itself, worst case of murder-suicide Western Civilization has ever seen.
Maybe the Politicians will see how much fun it is and join the game.

rbateman

The correct way to adjust for UHI is to lower the Urban station data.
You adjust that which is subject to increasing UHI effect, not that which is still in it’s natural state and in no way subject to anything but natural variation, which is the whole point of taking the temps.

old construction worker

Where’s Harry? You talents are needed. Life time employment guaranteed.

Robert (15:34:47).
OK, Robert, you tell us exactly what’s going on.
Unless, of course, your iPhone is charging on line…

latitude

“”why would the 1926 Anchorage temperature need any adjustment at all?””
To show unprecedented warming.
“”What could possibly justify that kind of adjustment, seven tenths of a degree?””
Because it’s a travesty that it no longer matched Anchorage.
“”Since people are asking us to bet billions on this dataset””
No, trillions, and a complete life overhaul.
Thanks again Willis

DirkH …
“This is a compensation for the UHI.”
Actually the only way at adjust for UHI is to lower temperatures, you would never adjust up to correct UHI …
These adjustments are pure nonsense …
Has anyone actually found an adjusted record that appears to be justified and rational ? i.e. with a real UHI adjustment ?
I have looked at the GISS before and after data for several dozen cities and I have yet to find one with a correct UHI adjustment. and by correct I mean adjusted down more today that 20 or 30 years ago … in every case the largest adjustment have always been in the past with a ladder like line of reduction climbing to present day …
also what in the world would justify the adjustments to the rural station data ? No UHI so why is the raw rural data being adjusted at all …

Steve J

Willis, thank you.
This is really more of the same!
The merry fraudster team (MFT) are attempting to show a steeper increase in temps. But this is outrageous!
The MFT needed to lower the past base temps and increase the more recent temps to show a steeper increase, to attempt to prove AGW.
Thanks to Dr. Christy, amongst others, we know these are bogus temps and the earth has been much warmer in the past, without burning fossil fuels.
I wonder how well the AGW MFT sleeps at night?
Does the world have the cajones to jail the MFT?

Peter Miller

In future, please can you show the actual numbers – original and then adjusted/manipulated – as well as the graphs.
This makes it that much more difficult for the alarmists to deny it’s happening.

henry

…continuation for the previous post, from Wikipedia:
“…In the 1970’s relatively large numbers of newcomers to Alaska came to Anchorage, then relocated 40 miles up the Glenn Highway to the largely rural Matanuska Valley where a “Alaskan country” lifestyle pervades…”
So more than likely they built an airport or two to move this massive increase, and that’s where the temp gauge is. It appears that Matanuska may be suffering from UHI, which makes the graph of adjustments seem even stranger.
Further research shows that they actually call the area the “Matanuska-Susitna Borough”, and there is no actual town called Matanuska.
“… As of 2008, (Alaska Dept. of Labor) there were 82,515 people residing in the borough. According to the 2000 Census, the population density was 2 people per square mile (1/km²). There were 27,329 housing units at an average density of 1 per square mile (0/km²)…”
Definitely UHI…

D. King

mathman (15:49:40) :
“…This is false data manipulation, ordered up by politicians, for the purpose of furthering their dreams of a Universal Utopian Socialist State.”
LOL, but not really.
It’s amazing what you can get for your “data manipulation” buck these days.

Willis Eschenbach

Robert (15:34:47)

Kinda started slow, but really picked up speed towards the end there.
You were on to something with: “Not sure what I can say about that, except that I don’t understand it in the slightest.” That seems like a logical place to stop. You raise a question, maybe somebody addresses it, everybody goes home happy.
Unfortunately you go on to assume all sorts of things about what it must mean, and end with a rousing course of “all the measurements are wrong.”

Nonsense. Read what I wrote and stop making things up. I said specifically that we don’t know if they are wrong, but we also don’t know if they are right. I said:

As the Romans used to say “falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”, which means “false in one thing, false in everything”. Do we know that everything is false? Absolutely not … but given egregious oddities like this one, we have absolutely no reason to believe that they are true either.

Your attempt to put words in my mouth is repugnant. If you have ideas, bring them out. If you have issues with what I wrote, quote what I said and tell me what’s wrong with it.

Typically, you cannot even bring yourself to accurately describe the evidence that the measurements are not wrong. The improbability of the exact same errors showing up all over the world in multiple data sets collected by different methods and different people you dismiss as “meaningless,” which it most certainly is not.
No, you were dead on: you don’t understand what’s going on in the slightest.

I did not say that the “exact same errors” have shown up, once again that’s your fantasy. Quote my exact words if you disagree with them, it is an unpleasant tactic to claim I said something that I did not say.
I said that when a variety of errors have been discovered in three datasets, the fact that their overall global average is somewhat similar doesn’t provide me with any comfort.
For example, when the GISS dataset first came out, it showed a smaller trend than either the CRU or the GHCN datasets. Since then, every new adjustment to the GISS dataset has increased the trend and reduced that difference, to the point where they are now much closer. Coincidence? I doubt it.
If you think that their current rough agreement means that both datasets are right, I fear I can’t help you. When datasets are constantly compared to each other and modified so they agree better and better, their final agreement is meaningless.
Finally, since you seem to be defending GISS and claiming it is accurate … why was Matanuska homogenized in the way that it was? And more to the point, why was it homogenized at all?
My guess, which I clearly identified as a guess, is computers gone wild combined with no quality control.
What’s your explanation?

RockyRoad

Robert (15:34:47) :
Kinda started slow, but really picked up speed towards the end there.

No, you were dead on: you don’t understand what’s going on in the slightest
______________________________________
REPLY:
Then by all means, Robert–enlighten us. Tell us wherein you know it all and we don’t.
Give us the reason according to your version of the story.
I double triple-dog dare you!
And if you don’t then I kindly request that you refrain from such comments from now on.
BTW, what scientific credentials do you have? Put them out if you have any.

Mark Wagner

The improbability of the exact same errors showing up all over the world in multiple data sets collected by different methods and different people
it’s not errors in the data sets being collected, it’s errors in the “adjustment” of the data.
And if you have a computer program that applies the same erroneous “adjustment” to each and every raw temperature record, you have a whole world of junk.
The audit shows that NASA applies an urban correction of its GISS temperature index in the wrong direction in 45% of the adjustments. Instead of eliminating the urbanization effects, these wrong way corrections makes the urban warming trends steeper
it looks to me like they’ve got a sign reversed; and I think it’s somewhere in the year counter. They’re making cooling adjustments back in time, rather than from the point of inception forward. this is why a warm year will result in changes that make 1934 (or whatever) suddenly get “adjusted” as cooler. And the more years get added, the farther back the adjustments get made.
now, that’s just a seat-of-the-pants analysis, but I’ve been looking at numbers for a lot of years, and my gut tells me to look for a counter programming error.
these guys aren’t programmers, and they don’t check their output. And it would be an easy rookie error to make.
just my 0.02

DirkH

Robert follows the same tactic every time. Probably he’s got a “Thread hijacking for dummies” app on his iPhone. Robert, could you please tell your iPhone that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics, could i please have the stock rebuttal for that?

Mooloo

Robert:
The improbability of the exact same errors showing up all over the world in multiple data sets collected by different methods and different people you dismiss as “meaningless,” which it most certainly is not.
Pay attention first, before you spout.
The errors are clearly not at the collection of the data. That would be daft.
The errors are to adjusted data, and will all be the same because the same body is applying them. Namely NASA.
Now the trickly question, Robert. How do you explain that this sort of oddity has appeared in GISS for Alaska, and also NIWA’s analysis for NZ, and in Australia too? Mere fluke?

GeneDoc

Smacks forehead. WTF? It’s so disappointing to see how amateur these “scientists” are. Very sad. Absolutely agree that it should be possible to trace back every adjustment all the way to the raw data for each station. How hard is that?
Of course I have trouble understanding the rationale for the way these data are used. Why is it useful to average temperatures? How meaningful is an average between a daily high and a daily low? That tosses so much information from hourly (or continuous) measures. Then averaging those into a monthly or yearly average? And then average that by region and then the whole globe? Seems nuts to leave behind so much data in search of a single yearly number to plot.
My other major concern is with the value of measuring air temperatures at the surface. When the entire heat content of the atmosphere is equivalent in amount to that in the first 8 feet of the oceans, shouldn’t we be much more interested in the heat content of the oceans? Given that there is no daily fluctuation in that temperature, I would find it a much better measure.

Robert

Willis, I think the way I characterized your writing and quoted you was completely accurate. I think your overwrought and emotional response suggests my criticisms found their mark.
You said something honest — you don’t understand why they made the adjustments they made. And then you went off the deep end.
If you want your guesses to be taken seriously, you need to make a little more of an effort to figure out what is going on before you go all tinfoil-hat on the subject.
I’ll ask you again: can you accurately describe any of the arguments in favor of the temperature measurements as they are?
If you can’t imagine how you could possibly be wrong, or understand the efforts that have been made to insure the data’s accuracy, there’s no point in challenging your faith with facts.

Peter of Sydney

The real science is coming in – we are not even sure there has been any global warming at all. So, the whole measurement, monitoring and analysis of global temperatures over the past 100 or so years has to be completely reviewed, and if necessary dumped if there’s insufficient accuracy to categorically say we have warmed, cooled or changed very little.

crosspatch

Oh, so the adjustments are hokey. But we have known that for several years already. Apparently discoveries such as these are falling in deaf ears because awareness doesn’t seem to seep beyond blogs such as this one that have been pointing these “adjustment” problems out for the past several years.
The logical thing to do would seem to be to eliminate urban stations from the record, use only rural stations, and not use any “adjustment” for Urban Heat Island. But the various groups seem to be doing the opposite, they are removing rural stations.
The whole thing is just a mess.

LearDog

Gotta remember that the product these guys produce is a grid. And while a grid should tie at every single data point, every single time – its a lot easier for them to change the data when its hidden, including a newly manufactured “RHI”(Rural Heat Island) effect. Fast and loose with data to say the least.
At least ONE person (probably 2-3) at CRU was ashamed, glad for their release, glad you guys called them on it and continue to investigate. As the REAL scientists.

Smokey (16:07:33) re: Robert (15:34:47).
OK, Robert, you tell us exactly what’s going on.
Unless, of course, your iPhone is charging on line…

I don’t think charging precludes typing-up a lucid (or any other type of) response, unless, he has to have his charging-cable plugged-in in lieu of a larger-sized keyboard …
.
.

derek

facepalm!

u.k.(us)

The “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” wants data on the climate.
Knowing their agenda, do you:
1) Tell them, it’s rather chaotic.
2) Sell your soul.

Willis Eschenbach

henry (16:02:33)

Would it be possible to append the second graph (the one of Matanuska) to show the population growth?

I haven’t been able to find data on that because it is a rural station. The GHCN station metadata is listed as
42570274001 MANTANUSKA AES 61.57 -149.27 46 225R -9FLxxCO30x-9TUNDRA C
with no population given, as is usual with rural stations. From Google Earth, if those coordinates are right (61.57N, 149.27W) it is definitely rural.

Second, at what interval does the adjustment steps for Anchorage and Matanuska occur? If they’re using a population growth for the adjustment steps to account or UHI, one would assume that they occur at National Census times (i.e, every 10 years or so).
The steps for the “rise” in Matanuska seem to be every two or three years since the mid-70’s…

The Anchorage steps are all but one at nine years, with one of ten years. The Matanuska steps downwards are about half and half seven and eight years. The upwards steps go three years, two years, three, two, three, two.
GISS doesn’t adjust for UHI by population in any case.
w.

Willis Eschenbach

Robert (15:59:50)

” Leonard Weinstein (15:30:54) :

I think you forgot the minus signs in Figure 1, or have the terms reversed. If the adjusted temperature is larger than unadjusted, the correction would result in raising the earlier temperatures, not lowering. Figure 3 looks strange, since the correction used would make the dip between 1920 to 1990 deeper, and this is probably backwards. I think you have a sign error in both.”

“falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus”?

Before you start gloating, you should actually check the numbers yourself. There is no substitute for doing the math yourself. Otherwise, you just look foolish. Leonard was in error, not myself. See Willis Eschenbach (15:37:55) and Leonard Weinstein (15:40:06) and DirkH (15:42:07).
Nice try, though …

Dave

Why is there even a practice to adjust temperature data at all? I’m
a PhD scientist and work with raw data all the time. If urban heat islands and those sorts of things are having an impact on the data, then those factors should be used to describe the data during model building. You always run into danger when you “adjust” data here and there. Confusion arises over time: are you working with the raw data or adjusted data, and has it been adjusted properly. I for one always want the raw, unadulterated data to work with.